Re: cataclysmic weapons in Mahabharata
- I had written:
> > [Shivraj,] you never quoted any "translation" from theYour reply:
> > Mahabharata by Dr. Whitaker. The lines you quoted from an article
> > of Whitaker's (without, of course, indicating the source, as per
> > your habit) are the following ones:
> > "...when contained the energy naturally expands, and can burst
> > its container and move into other sources. When this occurs on a
> > cataclysmic scale, such as the Narayan astra episode, then the
> > only option is to remove any potential sources of energy which it
> > can assimilate. The Narayan astra leaches the tejas of its
> > victims and swells to cataclysmic proportions, and only by the
> > intervention of Krishna is the imminent destruction of the
> > Pandava army avoided, and the universe saved."
> > Is this a "translation" of a passage from the Mahabharata? No.
> > This is a summary-cum-commentary made by Dr. Whitaker, not a
> > translation.
> This is from the "Conclusion" section of his paper "Indo-IranianThis is funny. How could this suggestion of yours have been implemented by "the reader", given that you had copied and pasted the above quote from Dr. Whitaker's article *WITHOUT* providing any indication of its source? Remember you had presented the aforesaid quote on the Narayana astra, which is merely a summary-cum-commentary by Dr. Whitaker, as the "words of Mahabharata"! This lie is contained in your message archived at
> Journal 43: 87113, 2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the
> What this means is that the reader, that is you in this case, needs
> to read the earlier sections of the paper to understand what the
> learned professor is concluding in the final section.
In the paper you have cited, Whitaker does not provide any quote from the Mahabharata relating to the Narayana astra episode (Mbh. 7.166-173):
"92. Once again due to space constraints I can not delve any deeper into the Narayana astra episode (MBh.7.166173). However, in the future I intend to elucidate the release of the Narayana astra and the principles of tejas in a separate paper" (endnote 92 at p. 112).
Therefore, contrary to what you write, "the reader", even though he/she could have accessed that paper (which thing he/she could not do based on the non-existent information you provided in your posts), *COULD NOT* "understand what the learned professor is concluding in the final section" -- simply because Whitaker does not analyze the Narayana astra eposide in that paper of his! The paper in which Whitaker fully discusses the Narayana astra episode (whose link was provided by me long ago to this List) is the following one:
In this paper Whitaker synthesizes the prescribed method for counteracting and neutralizing the Narayana astra as follows:
"(1) the warriors must dismount from their elephants, horses, and chariots; (2) they place their weapons on the ground, because the divine weapon cannot kill an unarmed warrior; and (3) they must refrain from attacking the astra even with their minds as the divine weapon could still afflict them" (p. 410 in the paper; the original Sanskrit text of Mbh.7.170.3842, relating to these words uttered by Krishna, is quoted by Whitaker in endnote 12 at p. 424).
I already asked you: Can nuclear weapons be counteracted and neutralized this way? I think that, should an army react this way to a nuclear attack, they would be burnt to ashes none the less! Conclusion: The Narayana astra, though its effect are quite cataclysmic, is not a nuclear weapon! It is up to you to prove it is, based on the Mahabharata text and not on third-hand quotations from "UFO-believing" Western authors (something you have repeatedly done during this long discussion).
In my latest post in this thread I had also written:
> > This discussion has *NOTHING* to do with the so-called AIT vs.You replied:
> > OIT debate; rather, it is a discussion between supporters of
> > science and believers in science fiction.
> Funny! Are you talking about the supporters of "science" who claimYou are trying to evade the discussion through some rhethorical tricks, yet one thing is very much apparent now: Your ravings on "nuclear weapons in the Mahabharata" are devoid of any scientific content and, having insisted on this point for months now, you have stepped down to the level of the irrational "UFO-believers" who are so commonly met with in the Western world, and who are unfortunately very strong in all the T.V. programs dedicated to the so-called "mysterious archaeology" and the like! I have always opposed that kind of T.V. garbage, and that's one of the reasons why I am wasting my precious time in exposing your irrational and unscientific ideas on "nuclear weapons in the Mahabharata"!
> a) Saraswati "never" reached the ocean [N.B. False: many modern
> scholars are ready to accept that the Ur-Sarasvati reached the
> Indian Ocean during the *Pleistocene* and perhaps the Early
> Holocene as well -- FB] and Indian Aryans could not have been
> acquainted with the ocean since their brethern in Europe were not...
> b) The etymology of Saraswati river comes from Iranian
> c) The AIT supporters of "science" should be believed that India
> was indeed invaded by the Aryans!!...
> d) A clergy man, Rev Cladwell, hell bent on "freeing the souls of
> south Indian Hindus" so that their souls could be harvested for
> Christianity, invents a non-sense Dravidian theory of languages
> and that the "AIT supporters of "science"" claim as the gospel!!!...
> Do you find anything scientific in your and your groups stance Dr
> I don't.
- How can RV post date mittani tablets?Shivraj
From: Arnaud <fournet.arnaud@...>
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 12:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Ind-Arch] Russian Connection of Indian Vedic Aryans
Le 25/09/2013 06:09, shivraj singh a Ã©crit :
> Dear Arnaud,***
> We have discussed this before. Mitanni tablets predate last
> quarter of the
> 2nd millenium.
yes, that's right,
Does this mean you agree with me about the RV being composed in the last
quarter of the 2nd millennium?